Google CEO Larry Page returned to the witness stand in a San Francisco federal courtroom today, but managed to avoid saying much despite nearly an hour of sustained grilling by Oracle lawyer David Boies.

Boies' questioning was stymied in part by the fact that Judge William Alsup (who is overseeing the case) stopped him from asking Page about certain documents that aren't in evidence yet. But while Page may have avoided saying much today, Alsup made it clear that Oracle will be able to put him back on the stand later in the trial if it so desires.

Today was the third day of trial in the Oracle v. Google showdown, which is scheduled to go for eight weeks. In three separate phases, a jury of 12 men and women is scheduled to decide whether Google is violating copyrights and patents that Oracle purchased when it bought Sun Microsystems a few years ago.

In his testimony today, Page made it clear that he saw a clear difference between the "free Java" that Google had a right to use, and the more elaborate forms of Java it could have used only if it had struck a deal with Sun.

"There's free Java and there's the Java that's Sun's technology," said Page. Google negotiated with Sun to explore the possibility of working together to build Android, but ultimately did the work on its own.

Page studiously answered Boies' questions on his own terms, at times bordering on evasive. On a few occasions Judge Alsup told Page to answer a "yes or no" question more directly. "The e-mail chain here seems kind of random," he said of one document presented to him. Another time he looked at a presentation to Google executives and said it looked like it was "not the right version."

The mainstay of Boies' questioning furthered Oracle's key theme: that Google was an outlier, the only company using Java APIs without getting permission from Sun in the form of a license.

"You do know that Google never got a license from Sun, right?" Boies asked at one point.

"I know we worked hard to negotiate a business license with Java," Page said.

At that point, Judge Alsup broke in. "That's a yes or no question," he said. "Is it true that you never got a license?"

"I'm not sure whether we ever got a license," Page said.

Shortly afterwards, Boies asked again: "Did Google ever get a license from Sun, or from Oracle, for Java?"

"I don't think that we did, no."

"Can you name a single company that uses Java APIs that has not taken a license from Sun or Oracle, except for Google?" asked Boies.

"I'm not an expert on that and I don't know."

After being curt with Boies, Page opened up more when he was examined by his own lawyer, Robert Van Nest. He explained that Android was developed as a way to get Google services out to mobile phone users in a more standardized way.

"We had been frustrated getting our software out to people," before Android, Page explained. "We had a closet [at Google] full of almost 100 phones, but it was almost impossible to develop through those phones. We primarily thought [Android] was a great way to get our existing services out to people and make them work—search, e-mail, and so on."

Page also described how the company reached an impasse with Sun. It would have been convenient to use Sun's technology and code, and saved Google "time and trouble," he said. But the price was too high. Google went down its own path, Page said.

"We tried hard to negotiate with Sun," he said. "Ultimately the idea we had for Android was a very open source system, and that was in conflict with things like the TCK, where they [Sun] charge money just to test compatibility. We were unable to convince them on that, and a whole bunch of other issues."

Also testifying today was Edward Screven, a Chief Corporate Architect at Oracle. Screven emphasized the importance of APIs to Oracle's business. Screven testified about the importance of Java and its APIs to Sun's business; he also said that Google had "fragmented and forked" Java by releasing Android.

Screven also testified that Java was the most valuable part of Oracle's purchase of Sun. In doing so, Screven mentioned the purchase price: $7.4 billion. Alsup quickly jumped in at that point, telling the jurors to disregard that figure. He said it has "nothing to do" with this case. The judge had previously warned Oracle's lawyers not to try to put "big numbers" in front of the jury. Oracle CEO Larry Ellison testified yesterday about his company's purchase of Sun, but didn't mention the purchase price.

Oh and I love when jurors are told."Ignore that big revealing fact you weren't supposed to hear"

I think Oracle are the suckers for paying $7.4 billion for Java, the only thing that might be considered to have value. Maybe the judge was thinking "So what? It isn't really worth that, so disregard it."

I'm surprised Google hasn't mentioned how Oracle was fine with them using their APIs until Android became the biggest player.

Not that I like Oracle but they've been engaged in this legal battle for about 2 years now I beleive. which was before some of the major devices like the fire was released, although I don't know what their standing was then.

I'm surprised Google hasn't mentioned how Oracle was fine with them using their APIs until Android became the biggest player.

I never understand this argument.

A 6 month turn around time from acquiring Sun to suing Google does not seem like they "waited" for anything at all. One could argue that Oracle purchased Sun for the express reason of suing Google, but it seems more likely that Oracle saw the rise of Android and assumed there were applicable patents there for them to get a slice of the Android revenue pie through licensing.

I have no idea whether or not Oracle knew if Sun and Google discussed patent licensing, but I imagine Oracle, at the worst, felt that they had more leverage than Sun did to force Google to license those patents. Of course, this is all speculation, but I don't comprehend how Oracle could be seen as sitting on their hands. The timeline simply doesn't bear that out.

"So let me get this straight, none of you, know anything, about anything, concerning the matter you are both in court for? If it were possible to hold someone in contempt of court for willful ignorance then I would gladly do so for the lot of you! As it stands, there is no legal precedent for such. But I am not above setting it right here and now. I hold both CEO's in contempt of court for willful and malicious ignorance concerning the matter brought before the court and sentence them to a week in confinement or until such time as they can come to an agreement out of court, case closed!"

And then he bangs his gavel really loudly, then goes to get drunk and play golf.

The only thing I'm taking away from this case is that it is bad business to use Java now that it is controlled by Oracle.

There has been growing sentiment to that effect for a while now.

Oracle are shooting themselves in the foot with this trial by alienating everyone away from Java, which will make the Sun acquisition worthless in the end. And all they have to gain if they even win this is a few tens of millions of dollars. I imagine their lawyers will be paid more than that by the time this is over.

So what does Oracle expect to gain from this trial? Sure, if they win they get a few millions short-term, but then what happens? Google switches to another language for Dalvik, then Java loses its biggest user base and then dies after a short while later as nobody wants to have anything to do with Java anymore?

I bet Ellison's weekend hobby is looking for random kids on the street and then pitch this offer to them:"Hey kid! Want to make a quick 500$? It's easy, just shoot yourself on the foot with this gun. Sure, it'll hurt like hell, and if you're unlucky you might have to get your foot amputated, but hey! 500 bucks! That's some sweet easy money you'll get right now! You'd be an idiot to refuse this free money, now wouldn't you?"

The only thing I'm taking away from this case is that it is bad business to use _____ now that it is controlled by Oracle.

Your statement is generalizable. E.g. Solaris, MySQL, BerkeleyDB, and OpenOffice all fit as well as Java, and that's just off the top of my head. Say what you want about Google, they're no angels. But Oracle is software poison in concentrated form.

When asked whether Google purchased a license to use Java, I would have answered, "We did not obtain a license to use the non-GPL portions of Java, the Sun Java, and therefore, chose not to use that technology." Then again, I'm not being grilled on the standard by the opposition's lawyer.

Oh and I love when jurors are told."Ignore that big revealing fact you weren't supposed to hear"

It is irrelevant though. They paid 7.4 billion to buy Sun, that has nothing to do with whether or not google needed a license for whichever APIs they used or didn't use The only purpose of throwing around billion dollar numbers is to convince the jury that they responsible for making a billion dollar decision.

No big numbers? What is the Oracle lawyer supposed to use instead? "We acquired Sun for an amount of money so big, we aren't even allowed to tell you"?

the lawyer is supposed to use facts relevant to the case. the amount of money oracle paid to buy sun has no bearing on whether google was violating patents or not. kudos to the judge for trying to keep things level.

The only thing I'm taking away from this case is that it is bad business to use Java now that it is controlled by Oracle.

There has been growing sentiment to that effect for a while now.

Oracle are shooting themselves in the foot with this trial by alienating everyone away from Java, which will make the Sun acquisition worthless in the end. And all they have to gain if they even win this is a few tens of millions of dollars. I imagine their lawyers will be paid more than that by the time this is over.

What, you think everyone will quit Java just to spite Oracle?.Really?.

So everyone so far seems to be glossing over the fact that Google went ahead anyway and used Sun's intellectual property although they couldn't negotiate a license deal with them?

Meh.

From what I got from the article, if they only used the free APIs they didn't need a license. From what I read elsewhere the supposed 9 lines imported the non-free APIs without a license but never used them in the code. So Google's argument would be that its not a breach of licensing or theft if those APIs were never used and Oracle disagreed with that assessment. I think that is the core of the lawsuit.

So everyone so far seems to be glossing over the fact that Google went ahead anyway and used Sun's intellectual property although they couldn't negotiate a license deal with them?

Meh.

As I understand it, Google couldn't get favorable terms licensing the APIs. So they didn't use Oracles and spent a bunch of time and money writing their own. Oracle is saying that they still need a license despite having re-written everything.

The only thing I'm taking away from this case is that it is bad business to use Java now that it is controlled by Oracle.

There has been growing sentiment to that effect for a while now.

Oracle are shooting themselves in the foot with this trial by alienating everyone away from Java, which will make the Sun acquisition worthless in the end. And all they have to gain if they even win this is a few tens of millions of dollars. I imagine their lawyers will be paid more than that by the time this is over.

What, you think everyone will quit Java just to spite Oracle?.Really?.

No but threat of law suit will though; even perceived dangers of it will affect adoption.

From what I read elsewhere the supposed 9 lines imported the non-free APIs without a license but never used them in the code. So Google's argument would be that its not a breach of licensing or theft if those APIs were never used and Oracle disagreed with that assessment. I think that is the core of the lawsuit.

You read wrong. The 9 line chunk of code is copied verbatim and is a part of every Android device shipped.

So everyone so far seems to be glossing over the fact that Google went ahead anyway and used Sun's intellectual property although they couldn't negotiate a license deal with them?

Meh.

I'm still waiting for what exactly the intellectual property is. If the APIs or the language are copywritable, Oracle is entitled to sue everyone who has written Java programs for producing an unauthorized derivative works. This goes against what we've been told about Java, but Oracle is going back on a lot of Sun/Oracle statements. This makes me nervous and is why I am following the case.

If Google copied documentation or a meaningful amount of code, they should play the damages.

So everyone so far seems to be glossing over the fact that Google went ahead anyway and used Sun's intellectual property although they couldn't negotiate a license deal with them?

Meh.

bet the lot are Android users.... You know how they hate to pay for apps

Google did not use Sun's IP, they used Harmony - a clean room version of Java (not java) that was under Apache license... Google then filled in the gaps with their own R&D to re-create the missing pieces that Harmony did not have or was not what Google wanted... Oracles entire thing seems to hing on if you can force a compliance license TCK on a language that is not java... very weird

There seems to be some confusion about the Sun/Google negotiation. From what I understand, the meetings weren't about licensing issues. Sun had already opened up Java under the GPL. It was about how much of Android each of them would be responsible for building in a joint venture. Sun finally bowed out because Google wanted to give Android away and Sun didn't. So Google finished it on its own. All the press releases and media coverage from the time indicate that Sun was thrilled Google was using Java. Kind of hard to prove theft after that in my opinion.

From what I read elsewhere the supposed 9 lines imported the non-free APIs without a license but never used them in the code. So Google's argument would be that its not a breach of licensing or theft if those APIs were never used and Oracle disagreed with that assessment. I think that is the core of the lawsuit.

You read wrong. The 9 line chunk of code is copied verbatim and is a part of every Android device shipped.

I had read that the 9 lines were includes/imports were shipped on android devices, but those libraries were never used in the core of android. If that is incorrect is there any indication online what the 9 line chunk is?

The only thing I'm taking away from this case is that it is bad business to use Java now that it is controlled by Oracle.

There has been growing sentiment to that effect for a while now.

Oracle are shooting themselves in the foot with this trial by alienating everyone away from Java, which will make the Sun acquisition worthless in the end. And all they have to gain if they even win this is a few tens of millions of dollars. I imagine their lawyers will be paid more than that by the time this is over.

What, you think everyone will quit Java just to spite Oracle?.Really?.

No but threat of law suit will though; even perceived dangers of it will affect adoption.

First, I don't think they're worried about market adoption at this point, and did you read the part where everyone but google has a license.

would it be contempt of court if a juror aquired the info from a simple google search using the words oracle bought sun? How would the judge even know if they did or not do just that, it certainly isn't outwith the bounds of possibility that the average joe the plumber could find the info if he wanted to.